Reason opt.lg_dirty_mult is not writable?

[D'Alessandro, Luke K]

> On Jan 21, 2015, at 4:32 PM, Jason Evans <jasone at canonware.com> wrote:
> 
> On Jan 21, 2015, at 1:25 PM, D'Alessandro, Luke K <ldalessa at indiana.edu> wrote:
>>> On Jan 21, 2015, at 4:10 PM, Jason Evans <jasone at canonware.com> wrote:
>>> Can you instead set malloc_conf (with appropriate mangling) to "lg_dirty_mult:-1”?  
>> 
>> Ah, maybe? I didn’t realize that we could mangle those up front, the opt code can be pretty opaque :-) That would be good enough for my purposes. So if my configuration normally generates the symbol as “prefix_je_opt_lg_dirty_mult”, then can I use that fully mangled name?
> 
> You can use PREFIX_MALLOC_CONF=lg_dirty_mult:-1 in the environment, or you can use prefix_malloc_conf = "lg_dirty_mult:-1" in C code.  There should be a distinct *MALLOC_CONF and *malloc_conf for each version of jemalloc you link into your application.

Perfect, thanks.

>> As a side note, we run into some symbols that aren’t properly mangled to link against two jemalloc instances. At some point (soon) we’ll submit an upstream patch to mangle them.
> 
> I just integrated a patch for this today (https://github.com/jemalloc/jemalloc/pull/185).

Great. Internal communication latency, I didn’t realize that went in already.

> 
> Thanks,
> Jason